Would you pay your mortgage quicker than 30 years?

Let’s see the smartest investors on this forum telling other investors if this is a good idea or not.

I base my question on the next tax reform impacting some people’s economic habits.

Is it good to cut it to 15 years?

Keep it at 30 years?

What do you say?


There’s zero point in paying it off early. I actually have too much equity sitting there as it is. I will probably take some of it out.

1 Like

Well, I am Mr. 2.5% interest rate with 15 years loan and I rounded my payment up to the next thousand. I just want to be debt free soon!!! Yes, come with the boos, what are you doing, etc…

1 Like

It all depends on where you are in life. I think most people here are still in accumulation phase. We want leverage and more growth. I think most people plan to be debt free or have very little debt at some point.


+one, but depends on interest rate. ! On any case, I would not reduce to 15 years, try to maximum extend possible in fixed loans.

Have you done numbers when it comes to pay more every month via 15 years vs 30 years? I know it sounds weird, but that extra amount every month will impede you from using that money to invest it on another home, right?

Will your mind change if the tax reform affects you?

Over 65 become debt free. At 25 leverage to the max,
Interpolate the debt risk in between for your age…

What if you drop dead at 65 like Ed did? Shouldn’t you max out on debt at old age and just die on it? Biggest middle finger to the man.

1 Like

Die broke if you have no dependents or heirs

1 Like

For 15 years, if we pay $X as interest, we pay $3X for 30 years. On any case, when we see interest side, we may stand to gain 2X by changing to 15 years, but when we account ROI on investment keeping 30 years, we gain a lot when ROI exceeds 10%

I was having first 30 years, refinanced to 15 years, then returned back to 30 years fixed.

1 Like

When you retire, one of the old time concerns was that you wouldn’t have any deductions, thus having a mortgage was a bless or a disgrace if you didn’t have any savings. Your SS then would be taxed to the max because your rentals and whatnot income would trigger the IRS to tax you on a tax bracket you, by not understanding the fundamentals of double taxation, fell in by not having any deductions.

I don’t know if the future tax reform will change that.

As long as I am working, like most earners, I will be paying mortgage. The moment I turn to retirement, all mortgages will be paid no matter how much interest rate is. At that time, I look at mortgage as risk than investment/ROI.

1 Like

If your retirement income is above $200/yr why would you not keep a mortgage on primary home to get MID and SALT deductions? Assuming those are still available after the tax reform.

1 Like

It is for peace of mind, get rid of all loans.

Retirement time focus and outlook changes, Calculated spending (as income stream is limited), focus on health (aged), maintain the assets (not looking aggressive growth), lot of people travel…etc.

Other than this, earning 200/yr is too good to keep the mortgage !

A lot of people have 200k pension after retirement. I think they only need to buy a life insurance policy and no need to pay off mortgage. Their life is more valuable financially than a no-income retiree

Most of people we interview during our retirement plans never knew that, first, they had to pay taxes to cash out their 401Ks, IRAs, etc. They didn’t know that when they retired their income from rentals and whatnot would make them qualify to sometimes a higher tax bracket than 0, which is the aim of many retirees. That will result in their SS income being taxed up to 85%. So, with no deductions, they will pay straight to uncle Sam money that they could have easily be saving if they planned with anticipation. It is like any business that has only income but barely any expenses to deduct. Cha-chin!

They also, lack of any life insurance because at the time they were in the age of thinking, the usual insurance being promoted was term, whole life or regular life insurance, very expensive, so they didn’t believe in anything. So, if they get into a very grave situation, they have to spend down all what they saved down to certain amount, so they can qualify for any government assistance. By the way, there’s no long term care paid for by the government. As I said, once you spend down to the legal limits, from there you will live with a house and a car and some money in the bank. If you had plenty, most will have to be spent down to pay for long term care. Google it.

Next week, at our office’s meeting, we’ll have a meeting/class where a CPA will teach us how to put grandma/pa into a retirement home as a higher income person paying $7K+ a month, then, do a legal trick, and leave her there paying $700 a month, even though the have plenty of $ to pay for her care. All legal, playing by the rules. :smiley:

1 Like

Maybe related?

Exchange working for “income from rentals”.